I've been published...
Finally haha. I am gratified to note that my letter was published at the top of the Forum page, which means I've joined the crackpot ranks of George Lim (woohoo!) and less dubious commentators like Narayana Narayana (I still rmb his name, that's how many letters he wrote). I am annoyed, however, at the errors the editor introduced to my letter. The most glaring one is the title he gave it: nowhere in my letter do I argue (exclusively) for a 2-party system!
It's sadly constrained by the 400-word limit. I still maintain that it's impossible to develop a coherent and comprehensive argument within that; but maybe in it's infinite wisdom our beloved ST has figured out that most Singaporeans can't sustain their attention for more than 5 paras. ^^
-----
My original submission follows:
Dear Sir,
I refer to recent letters regarding Singapore's political system.
In my view the debate boils down to this question: is the potentially monolithic mindset of a single-party system more dangerous than the chaotic free-wheeling debate engendered by a multiparty democracy? I believe that, all things considered, the balance of benefits and costs comes out in favour of the latter.
Dr Tan notes that a multiparty system is no guarantee against groupthink – but compared against a single-party system, surely it provides at least an assurance that more views are heard? Mr Tim points out that PAP MPs have challenged ministers, but these are often on finer points of policy, not on the very direction of Singapore's development – no PAP MP would throw out their party's manifesto or risk the Party Whip.
Dr Tan cites the PAP's experience in its defence – however it is fallacious to argue that past experience guarantees future performance, as anyone who has read the fine print on financial products will know. Experience did not prevent PAP town councils from investing in a manner more befitting an investment banker than a government body; neither did it prevent the LDP from plunging Japan into a decade of stagnation.
More importantly, Singapore's past growth was built on emulating best practices from around the world, policies that worked for decades. This justified the need for a strong and decisive executive. Now that Singapore has entered the ranks of the developed nations, this strategy no longer suffices. Experience does not prevent us from making mistakes, worse, it creates an environment of complacency and lethargy.
Together with the rest of the developed world we are entering unchartered territory in terms of economic and demographic development. Experience counts for little in this new game; experience cannot provide the paradigm shifts that characterise pivotal moments in history: the Industrial Revolution, the Meiji Revolution, or Roosevelt's New Deal. The fast-evolving global landscape Mr Tim references is precisely what necessitates the development of a marketplace of ideas in Singapore.
Moreover, it must fall to an outsider to point this out: the PAP's self-interest is, above all, its own survival. Singaporeans must de-link the fortunes of our nation with those of our ruling party; surely all of us would agree that even if the PAP were to fall one day on the back of mismanagement or bad governance, Singapore herself cannot afford to fall.
It's sadly constrained by the 400-word limit. I still maintain that it's impossible to develop a coherent and comprehensive argument within that; but maybe in it's infinite wisdom our beloved ST has figured out that most Singaporeans can't sustain their attention for more than 5 paras. ^^
-----
My original submission follows:
Dear Sir,
I refer to recent letters regarding Singapore's political system.
In my view the debate boils down to this question: is the potentially monolithic mindset of a single-party system more dangerous than the chaotic free-wheeling debate engendered by a multiparty democracy? I believe that, all things considered, the balance of benefits and costs comes out in favour of the latter.
Dr Tan notes that a multiparty system is no guarantee against groupthink – but compared against a single-party system, surely it provides at least an assurance that more views are heard? Mr Tim points out that PAP MPs have challenged ministers, but these are often on finer points of policy, not on the very direction of Singapore's development – no PAP MP would throw out their party's manifesto or risk the Party Whip.
Dr Tan cites the PAP's experience in its defence – however it is fallacious to argue that past experience guarantees future performance, as anyone who has read the fine print on financial products will know. Experience did not prevent PAP town councils from investing in a manner more befitting an investment banker than a government body; neither did it prevent the LDP from plunging Japan into a decade of stagnation.
More importantly, Singapore's past growth was built on emulating best practices from around the world, policies that worked for decades. This justified the need for a strong and decisive executive. Now that Singapore has entered the ranks of the developed nations, this strategy no longer suffices. Experience does not prevent us from making mistakes, worse, it creates an environment of complacency and lethargy.
Together with the rest of the developed world we are entering unchartered territory in terms of economic and demographic development. Experience counts for little in this new game; experience cannot provide the paradigm shifts that characterise pivotal moments in history: the Industrial Revolution, the Meiji Revolution, or Roosevelt's New Deal. The fast-evolving global landscape Mr Tim references is precisely what necessitates the development of a marketplace of ideas in Singapore.
Moreover, it must fall to an outsider to point this out: the PAP's self-interest is, above all, its own survival. Singaporeans must de-link the fortunes of our nation with those of our ruling party; surely all of us would agree that even if the PAP were to fall one day on the back of mismanagement or bad governance, Singapore herself cannot afford to fall.
Labels: Everything
posted by Unknown at
11:14 am
2 Comments:
hey rayner i saw the letter when i was flipping through the papers and i didnt realise you wrote it til i read your entry! haha so cool. plus you got like a huge headline.
if you want to read really dumb and pointless forum letters you should check out mypaper (that trashy tabloid thing). there's this guy called ace kindred (wth) who likes to write letters about really pointless stuff. its hilarious. (:
lol dumb letters are painful to read! =) and the chinese-english paper thing just freaks me out haha
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home